Do you believe in God?

[Azuremen]

Ah yes, the good old personal attack. You don't get to tell me where I can post. If you're incapable of seeing the big picture, that's not my problem.

You mean that big picture where my father had Polio? Because, please, tell me how Polio is a result of human intervention. Or cancer, which my mother had. Because from my research, both of these have existed for quite some time, and cancer occurs naturally in a variety of animals regardless of human interaction.

And for personal attacks, I'm also curious where you see one of those being made.

Oh here we go

I'd call "you seem incapable of actually contributing anything remotely meaningful." reasonably personal & hardly complimentary.

You mean pointing out that all you've contributed is circular reasoning that amounts to "I told you so, so ha" and somewhat flippant responses when asked to provide evidence?

Oh, and acting all enlightened with "big picture" comments is fairly comparable to "just leave if you aren't going to contribute." Perhaps even more "insulting" as it insinuates I'm incapable of grasping complex ideas.

But hey, we can all read into things how we want, now can't we?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

@SuperCobraJet - although I do not accept your point about belief being 'universal', it is a moot point anyway.

That all depends.
What do individuals operate from if not belief?
And remember, there is no gaurantee on any future outcome.
Good odds maybe, but no gaurantee.

As many people have attempted to explain already, in a variety of different ways, what one believes does not change the objective truth - in other words, one's personal beliefs don't make any difference to the real world, and that is as clear and demonstrable a fact of reality as you can get.

Sorry TM, but I have to disagree.
A stroll through the annals of history will undoubtedly, show otherwise.
As a matter of fact, it can probably be shown somewhat easily, that personal beliefs have shaped the world for better and worse than any other single factor.

Your preoccupation with arguing that belief is unavoidable, universal and that everybody does it all the time is completely and utterly irrelevant when discussing how one might establish what is objectively true. As homeforsummer said, it doesn't matter whether you believe a floor will support your weight - whether it does or not depends on factors completely outwith the belief/mind of the person considering it. That is what objectivity means - and it matters not whether any individual person is capable of practicing it - objective reality is, by definition, that which can be verified and measured by independent observers - that the result is not dependent on the influence of the observer.

Well thats all great, but your forgetting, belief is still required for all of it.
The only difference is, the objective reality doesn't require much convincing, or individual due-dilegence.

It doesn't matter if you call the acceptance of established facts due to overwhelming supporting evidence 'belief' - once again, you're just playing with words while missing the actual significance - that is, what is objectively verifiable and what is not. It would appear that you cannot (or choose not to) distinguish between what someone might be convinced is true, and what can be demonstrated to be true in spite of such conviction...

I can distinguish between the two.
However, I also know a truth from subjective evidence, is no less a truth, than from objective evidence.

Please don't tell me how to do science. Your track record in this area is, at best, a bit patchy. Also, regarding the bold text - I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say, I tried reading it out loud back to myself and now my brain hurts.

What I am saying is a belief can be embedded overtime as a unconscious assumption.
Particularly, from exposure to repeated reinforced positive outcome.
Or in other words you don't think about it, you are conditioned to act under the assumptive belief, of continued positive outcome. So you proceed accordingly.

Because despite all of the scientific research conducted by many of the most intelligent people in the world, the strongest case for the existance of a god is based on blind faith and ancient eyewitness accounts.

So you have decided to let someone elses opinion, dictate to you what is probable as to GOD's existance?

I think a more relevant question that I put to you would be 'Why do you think God's existance is probable?'

Well, from a probability standpoint, IMO, it makes the most sense, it fits perfectly, it is the most correlatable,
and in general, its the most logical and rational.

I don't believe you. Wait, hang on...

OK.

If you were using accept in the correct context SCJ, you would be using #5. Using #4 makes no sense, you cannot tolerate a claim, you can tolerate someone's choices or opinions, but we're not giving our opinion, we are making a claim (and also backing it up, but that's irrelevant to my point). So when you say you accept our claim, it means you agree with us.

Granted, something here makes no sense.
But it has nothing to do with my intented definition.
BTW, I'm doing the accepting, so the intent of definition, is solely mine.
It is #4 and I am perfectly correct in doing so.
Maybe #5 is your definition, wherein if it is, you agree with my claim.

 

[Famine]

I'd call "you seem incapable of actually contributing anything remotely meaningful." reasonably personal & hardly complimentary.

In three posts you failed to provide anything remotely meaningful - blaming mankind for nature being imperfect then saying imperfection is the nature of nature isn't exactly enviromental science 101 - and so you that's the outward appearance you give.

Hence you "seem".

I WAS interested in the discussion, but it seems that those that don't subscribe to certain lines of thinking are just going to be wrong anyway.

That line of thinking is only that evidence should be provided.

Surely your opinion must be based in some evidence somewhere?

 

[Touring Mars]

What do individuals operate from if not belief?

Awareness, intellect, knowledge, memory, sensory stimuli, instinct - you name it.

Sorry TM, but I have to disagree.
A stroll through the annals of history will undoubtedly, show otherwise.
As a matter of fact, it can probably be shown somewhat easily, that personal beliefs have shaped the world for better and worse than any other single factor.

Once again you are confusing/conflating two completely separate concepts here - no doubt personal beliefs have shaped and continue to shape the world around us - but that is not the same thing as saying that personal beliefs can alter the objective properties of inanimate objects or anything else. They cannot and do not. One's personal beliefs might influence how you interpret objective information, but again, that is not the point - what one believes personally has no bearing on whether something is demonstrably verifiable by an independent observer.

Well thats all great, but your forgetting, belief is still required for all of it.

No... belief is not required at all. Once again, whether beliefs are present or influence how people perceive the world does not alter the way the world is. You are still conflating the effect of belief itself with the influence that beliefs might have via the behaviour/actions of believers - these are two completely separate things, and I'm surprised that you can't make this simple and clear distinction.

The bottom line is this: no amount of belief can make something true when it is provably false. Whether you believe the Earth is flat does not and cannot make it so. Whether you believe that the 49ers won the Super Bowl last season does not and cannot make it so.

I can distinguish between the two.

No, you clearly cannot.

I also know a truth from subjective evidence, is no less a truth, than from objective evidence.

We've been through this already - subjective evidence and objective evidence are not equivalent in value. Objective evidence - that which can be derived and demonstrated by independent observers - has intrinsic value. Subjective evidence - that which cannot be derived independently (by definition) nor demonstrated to anyone - has no intrinsic value unless there is corroborating objective evidence.

What I am saying is a belief can be embedded overtime as a unconscious assumption.
Particularly, from exposure to repeated reinforced positive outcome.
Or in other words you don't think about it, you are conditioned to act under the assumptive belief, of continued positive outcome. So you proceed accordingly.

And my question is, SO WHAT? While this may well be true, it does not mean that beliefs and objective facts are equivalent... they're not. Some people may (try to) live their daily lives guided by their beliefs alone, but problems will inevitably arise when those beliefs are shown to be provably false by the discovery or presence of contradictory observable/objective evidence. The evolution vs creation thread is a great example of what happens when reality and objective evidence arrives and comes into conflict with belief.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Sorry TM, but I have to disagree.
A stroll through the annals of history will undoubtedly, show otherwise.
As a matter of fact, it can probably be shown somewhat easily, that personal beliefs have shaped the world for better and worse than any other single factor.

Really? You honestly think he was talking about human history and what we've done on this planet? News flash, he wasn't. He was talking about objective reality, and how belief doesn't change the physical properties of the universe. For example, I can believe the moon is made of cheese as much as I want, that belief will NEVER affect what the moon is made of.

Well thats all great, but your forgetting, belief is still required for all of it.
The only difference is, the objective reality doesn't require much convincing, or individual due-dilegence.

Oh dear

I can distinguish between the two.
However, I also know a truth from subjective evidence, is no less a truth, than from objective evidence.

It gets worse... Ok, so it would be interesting for you to explain why subjective evidence has never proved the existence of anything, whereas objective evidence has proved the existence of everything we know today, good luck with that.

What I am saying is a belief can be embedded overtime as a unconscious assumption.
Particularly, from exposure to repeated reinforced positive outcome.
Or in other words you don't think about it, you are conditioned to act under the assumptive belief, of continued positive outcome. So you proceed accordingly.

Actually no, I don't assume anything, it's just every day things has such a small chance of having a bad outcome, that I will happily take the risk without thinking twice. Taking a risk is not a belief that you will get a favourable outcome because belief suggests you don't think there is a risk.

So you have decided to let someone elses opinion, dictate to you what is probable as to GOD's existance?

This one's funny, no, we don't let scientists dictate anything, if the most intelligent people on the planet can find any evidence for a god, why would you think a god exists.

Here's another fun little bit of maths for you;

If there's no evidence to answer a question, then there are an infinite number of possible answers to that question, all of which are just as likely, meaning that the probability of any which one being true = 0%. So you could argue, that until there is evidence to answer a question, e.g. "what was before the big bang?", there is no answer, there's a novelty for you

Well, from a probability standpoint, IMO, it makes the most sense, it fits perfectly, it is the most correlatable,
and in general, its the most logical and rational.

This is correct, but it's also correct for every single other possibility you could ever think of, including a magic eternal potato wedge, until someone actually gets some evidence.

Granted, something here makes no sense.
But it has nothing to do with my intented definition.
BTW, I'm doing the accepting, so the intent of definition, is solely mine.
It is #4 and I am perfectly correct in doing so.
Maybe #5 is your definition, wherein if it is, you agree with my claim.

You can't choose what definition you want to use, the definition is determined by the context, in the context of the question, accept can only have one definition, and that is #5. Don't believe me? Try and fit in the other definitions of accept and see if any of them make sense with regards to the question.

 

[homeforsummer]

Well, from a probability standpoint, IMO, it makes the most sense, it fits perfectly, it is the most correlatable,
and in general, its the most logical and rational.

You heard it here first people: The sky pixie is a "logical and rational" answer to everything.

Rather than attempting to discover how things work ourselves, thereby increasing human knowledge and advancing society.

 

[orimarc]

I think the "GOD™ created everything" story could be a representation of the human ego:

"ME MAKE TOOLS, THINGS ARE THERE THAT I DIDN'T MAKE, SOMETHING LIKE ME MUST HAVE MADE THEM"

Because of course something like man made them, it couldn't appear by itself, could it?

"MEN IN SKY MAKE EVERYTHING. HE POWERFUL. HE HATE ME. HE LIMITLESS."

"Why he hate you?"

"HE MAKE ANIMALS THAT BITE AND MAKE ME GO DEAD. HE MAKE PLANTS THAT WHEN EATEN, MAKE ME GO DEAD. HE MAKE BIG SPINNING AIR THING AND BIG WATER WAVE THING AND GROUND SHAKEY THING AND MOUNTAIN SPIT-FIRE THING AND OTHER THINGS THAT MAKE ME GO DEAD. HE TOTALLY HATE ME."*

*(and here I would describe illnesses and things like that, but I can't describe cancer with cave-man-like vocabulary)

 

[Ranman20]

 

[huskeR32]

Because despite all of the scientific research conducted by many of the most intelligent people in the world, the strongest case for the existance of a god is based on blind faith and ancient eyewitness accounts.

So you have decided to let someone elses opinion, dictate to you what is probable as to GOD's existance?

Wut.

 

[Imari]

However, I also know a truth from subjective evidence, is no less a truth, than from objective evidence.

So you have decided to let someone elses opinion, dictate to you what is probable as to GOD's existance?

Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle knows all about God, he read it in a book.

 

[Danoff]

Hopefully you're still crafting your response to my previous post, but to that I'll add this:

What do individuals operate from if not belief?
And remember, there is no gaurantee on any future outcome.

How do you reconcile these statements? Individuals must operate based on belief, but there is no guarantee on any future outcome. How can you believe something that has no guarantee? How can you believe something that you yourself think could be wrong? It is a direct contradiction.

So far all of your posts arguing that human beings operate entirely on belief contradict themselves, most of the time in the very next sentence. You're going to have to do a much better job of communicating if you want any of us to understand how you can hold such conflicting thoughts simultaneously.

 

[Ingram]

So you have decided to let someone elses opinion, dictate to you what is probable as to GOD's existance?

The short answer? What Imari said.

The long answer? I've let someone else, who has researched relevant topics in far more detail than myself, propose hypotheses, perform experiments, repeat to verify (or dismiss) the results, collate the data and come to a conclusion which after peer review can by accepted as a sound scientific theory. If someone is to dictate what is probable, whether referring to the likelihood of a god's existance, or indeed any questions I may have about any facet of life, then a highly qualified expert in the relevant field is my kinda guy.

What you fail to realise here is that I studied at Catholic schools for my thirteen years of school education, I had plenty of time to be subjected to, and question, religious teachings. What made me question Christianity the most is that the Bible is able to pick and choose what parts to accept and ignore seemingly on a whim, which to me brings the whole shebang into doubt.

Well, from a probability standpoint, IMO, it makes the most sense, it fits perfectly, it is the most correlatable, and in general, its the most logical and rational.

Don't use probability as a tool to turn my own argument against me, or claim that something is correletable, logical and rational without expecting a follow-up question asking for some sort of proof. Do you have any? Clue - faith does not count.

The problem here is you are having to lean on opinion rather than fact. I could ask at this point why God is correct instead of Allah, but you could give exactly the same answer. But my own and many others' desire to question everything with the end result of learning something new makes blind faith a rather unsatisfactory answer.

 

[Scaff]

Don't use probability as a tool to turn my own argument against me, or claim that something is correletable, logical and rational without expecting a follow-up question asking for some sort of proof. Do you have any? Clue - faith does not count.

Don't count it out. SJC has already attempted (and failed) to re-define probability as well.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

So we breathe only because we believe we can?

Breathing along with heartbeat and a few others are involuntary physiological actions of the body.
They require no consent or belief to operate.
Or they are not dependent on the decisions of belief formed by the psyche.
Of note however, is their operation can be overridden and terminated by the latter.
Danoff touches on that below.

Fascinatingly wrong. I'll explain below:

How exactly do you reconcile these statements? If I expect a probable outcome, but am aware that it may not occur, what would you say my state of belief on the following statement?

"The outcome will occur in the future."

Do I think that is true, or do I think that is false?.

You are claiming belief of a future event, but no belief in a exact timeframe for it.

If you hand me a revolver that has a bullet in one chamber and a total of 6 chambers, and then you spin it so that I don't know which chamber the bullet is in, I would assign the probability of the next shot being one that fires a bullet as 1 in 6.

Now here's the fun part, what is my state of belief on the following statement:

"The gun will fire on the next shot"

Obviously, you believe it will fire on the next shot.

Do I think that it is true or do I think that it is false? You have said that I can't be in between, I must either "believe it is true" or "believe it is false" according to you, and yet I don't believe either. I think it is unlikely to occur but could occur.

You are attempting to hold two opposite views at the same time.
One of belief, and one of no belief.
As I stated correctly, this cannot be done.

So which is it, "The gun will fire on the next shot" or "I think it is unlikely to occur but could occur"?
If you choose the former, you are in "belief".
If you choose the latter, you are in "no belief".

Only if you use "belief" in the colloquial "I believe I'll have a sandwich" sense. If you use belief in the technical "I believe in God" sense - which is what this thread is about - that's absolutely 100% false.

Obviously, the two are from opposite ends of the belief spectrum.
One of complete triviality, and the other of a very complex and serious nature.
However, there probably are some who would approach both from the sandwich end.

I'm sure that your God would send you straight to hell for having "tentative" believe in Jesus Christ as your savior and trying to pass it as honest religious "belief". For any discussion such as this one, where the meaning of the word matters a great deal, "belief" is absolute. You must know it to be true.

Because a belief is tentative, does not mean it is not honest.
In fact its usually the opposite.

We happen to be discussing what the word belief entails and it's application.
You don't necessarily have to know anything to form a belief.
Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean here.

This is a direct contradiction. If you do not have a belief on something as of yet, then, by definition, you do not believe it to be true or false. So which is it? (Hint: You only get to pick one in this argument, and one of them is wrong)

No its not a contradiction.
You are confusing "unbelief" with "no belief".
They are distinctly different terms.

"No belief" means just that, you have not chosen or formed a belief.
"Unbelief", means you have actually engaged belief on one side, or switched sides of belief.
The other side then is said to be the one of unbelief.

So you can't take any actions until you fully believe, unless you act in spite of incomplete assurance.... which is the exact opposite of the previous statement.

No not really.
"Belief" can be formed or chosen at any time, for any reason.
I might add, rational or otherwise.
I think most people use a rational approach and form belief from a individual perspective of the scale of evidence.
Probably accumalating momentem for belief along the probability and beyond reasonable doubt, thresholds of the scale.
Naturally, as this thread can attest, all that varies from individual to individual.
Likewise, the belief can still be acted upon even in a tentative stage.
I once signed a loan for a sizable amount of money at a very high interest rate, and my belief was tentative at best.
My belief in GOD was tentative at one time as well, so you don't have to necessarily "fully believe" something to act on it as a belief.
In reality, since there is no gaurantee of future outcome, your actions are never in complete assurance.
Thats what makes them proof of "beliefs".

 

[LeMansAid]

Obviously, the two are from opposite ends of the belief spectrum.
One of complete triviality, and the other of a very complex and serious nature.
However, there probably are some who would approach both from the sandwich end.

No, Danoff's example was a very good one. It's an example of how we (humankind) tend to like taking liberties with exact meanings of words. It's not trivial vs serious, it's incorrect vs correct. However, when talking about something trivial people will tend not to mind the liberty taken, but are much more likely to mind when on the topic of something serious.

No its not a contradiction.
You are confusing "unbelief" with "no belief".
They are distinctly different terms.

"No belief" means just that, you have not chosen or formed a belief.
"Unbelief", means you have actually engaged belief on one side, or switched sides of belief.
The other side then is said to be the one of unbelief.

Untie is active. Unrepresented is inactive. Unwind is active. Uneducated (was tempted) is inactive. Undress is active. Unbelief is inactive.

 

[Dotini]

...no doubt personal beliefs have shaped and continue to shape the world around us - but that is not the same thing as saying that personal beliefs can alter the objective properties of inanimate objects or anything else. They cannot and do not. One's personal beliefs might influence how you interpret objective information, but again, that is not the point - what one believes personally has no bearing on whether something is demonstrably verifiable by an independent observer.

What TM is so clearly arguing is the philosophy or paradigm of reductionism, which holds that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents. Reductionist thinking and methods form the basis for many of the well-developed areas of modern science, physics, chemistry and cell biology. There are obviously benefits to reductionism, but there are also limits and problems.

Many feel that man is more than the sum of his parts, and that man is more than just his physical body, the unsolved riddle of consciousness being an obvious example. Reductionists like Dawkins will argue heatedly that consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon which will be eventually solved by reductionist methods. In the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in physics, many interesting and relevant phenomena cannot be replicated in laboratory conditions, and thus cannot be measured or observed without influencing and changing the system in some way.

The development of systems thinking has provided methods for tackling issues in a holistic rather than a reductionist way, and many scientists approach their work in a holistic paradigm. An example of this sort of approach is a new study by researchers in Wisconsin, Spain, and France reports the first evidence of specific molecular changes in the body following a period of intensive mindfulness practice. Evidence is growing that training the mind or inducing specific modes of consciousness can have beneficial health effects.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

“Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.

The study was published in the Journal Psychoneuroendocrinology.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Awareness, intellect, knowledge, memory, sensory stimuli, instinct - you name it.

Like I mentioned before, you are attempting to skip an essential element of reality.
Those things cannot take any action.
One, all, or none of those things may influence belief, and from that action is taken.
Except some forms of stimuli.

Once again you are confusing/conflating two completely separate concepts here - no doubt personal beliefs have shaped and continue to shape the world around us - but that is not the same thing as saying that personal beliefs can alter the objective properties of inanimate objects or anything else. They cannot and do not. One's personal beliefs might influence how you interpret objective information, but again, that is not the point - what one believes personally has no bearing on whether something is demonstrably verifiable by an independent observer.

I did not miss your point.
I just wanted to make note of the huge influence personal belief has had, and continues to have on world events.
You sorely tempt me with that last part but, I will let it pass for now.

No... belief is not required at all. Once again, whether beliefs are present or influence how people perceive the world does not alter the way the world is. You are still conflating the effect of belief itself with the influence that beliefs might have via the behaviour/actions of believers - these are two completely separate things, and I'm surprised that you can't make this simple and clear distinction.

My point there is more before the fact, yours is after.
Before the objective principle is established, someone has and must engage belief to establish it.
After is just an exercise in rational cognizance.
So in reality, objective evidence is established from belief.

The bottom line is this: no amount of belief can make something true when it is provably false. Whether you believe the Earth is flat does not and cannot make it so. Whether you believe that the 49ers won the Super Bowl last season does not and cannot make it so.

I agree.
Of note however, is again the belief involved before the fact.

No, you clearly cannot.

I beg to differ, I clearly can.
If I could not, there would be no reason to keep my evidence argument within the confines of the reality in which it really exists.
Obviously it does not come out on the scale of evidence as high up as objective, or what would be considered conclusive, evidence.
Wherein nothing further is required but as said above, rational cognizance.
Nevertheless, that does not discount in any way, the rationalization of the real possibilty or probability it is true.

The problem here which I have stated numerous times, is the insistent adherence to one physical method to prove a spiritual reality.
BTW, that approach is anything but objective, from a personal perspective.
Likewise you are wasting your time, if that is what you are waiting for.
By the time it becomes objective and conclusive, it will be too late to invest in it.
The Science model is very good for objective proof of physical phenomenon.
It is practically useless for proof of the spiritual.
Also, as I've tried to point out, evaluation of lower scale evidence, requires much more individual time, effort, evaluation, and examination than does higher scale evidence.

Like the relational dimension we experience, it is of that design, but spiritually based.
I've also mentioned in other rounds here, how the whole developemental establishment of the marriage relationship is a good correlational analogy of it.
Just like the investment of time, effort, evaluation, and examination, (as well as other stuff) has to be made in that, it likewise has to be made in your developemental establishment of a relationship with GOD.

Not to mention if GOD asserted objective evidence for himself, it would be a gross, overwhelming undue influence on your dominion and free-will choice.
You would be practically forced to accept it, and that would deeply damage the value of it, that could otherwise be established, apart from it.
That would be similar to you being forced to marry someone, you do not know or have not selected.
Just as a side note, GOD is extremely relationally oriented.
That is the priority, not Science.

We've been through this already - subjective evidence and objective evidence are not equivalent in value. Objective evidence - that which can be derived and demonstrated by independent observers - has intrinsic value. Subjective evidence - that which cannot be derived independently (by definition) nor demonstrated to anyone - has no intrinsic value unless there is corroborating objective evidence.

So I've heard.
Your missing the whole point.
You are prejudicially dismissing evidence as valueless, when it could easily represent an absolute truth.
A truth does not have to be represented by Scientifically objective evidence, to be true.

And my question is, SO WHAT? While this may well be true, it does not mean that beliefs and objective facts are equivalent... they're not. Some people may (try to) live their daily lives guided by their beliefs alone, but problems will inevitably arise when those beliefs are shown to be provably false by the discovery or presence of contradictory observable/objective evidence. The evolution vs creation thread is a great example of what happens when reality and objective evidence arrives and comes into conflict with belief.

Interesting.
Since your last statement, technically involves the subject of another thread, I do not think it should be elaborated on here.
So I will just say, I agree, but that doesn't mean what you probably think it does.



Since GT6 releases today, I may not be around here much the the next several days.
But of course that all depends.

 

[Touring Mars]

Those things cannot take any action.

I don't really know what you meant by this, but if you mean that awareness, intellect, knowledge, memory, instinct etc. don't influence human behaviour/human actions, then you surely cannot be serious.

So in reality, objective evidence is established from belief.

It doesn't matter how often you care to repeat this, it will remain wrong.

Your missing the whole point.
You are prejudicially dismissing evidence as valueless, when it could easily represent an absolute truth.

Similarly to what Danoff has pointed out with many of your previous statements, you appear to undermine your own point here. I am not dismissing any evidence as valueless. What I am saying is that subjective evidence can be considered valuable, but it requires non-subjective evidence in order for that value to be determined. The fact that you have just said "it could easily represent an absolute truth" is telling, as it clarifies my point succinctly. As I've said before, subjective evidence might be completely accurate and totally valid, but that accuracy and validity can only be described in relation to objective evidence. The very terms 'accurate', 'valid', 'truth' etc. are referential terms. You inadvertently acknowledge this by using the word 'could' in the sentence above. Yes, subjective evidence could represent (an accurate reflection of) the truth, but the question is how would you know its really the truth, and how might you go about demonstrating/describing that truth to anyone else, other than saying what is so often repeated in this thread, which is 'take my word for it, as I know it to be true'. Sorry, but that ain't good enough. It never was and never will be.

A truth does not have to be represented by Scientifically objective evidence, to be true.

If you expect anybody else to be able determine its truthfulness independently of your experience, then yes it does.

-

Regarding your response to Danoff's post(s):

If you choose the latter, you are in "no belief".

By jove I think he's got it.

Of course, this doesn't sit well with your view that belief must be applied all the time...

You are attempting to hold two opposite views at the same time.

No. Danoff is being completely clear here. It is your insistence that belief is required at all times that is creating the paradox here. Danoff (and most other participants in this debate) are of the singular point of view that, in the Russian Roulette scenario depicted by Danoff, it is not possible to say whether the belief 'the gun will fire on the next shot' is either true or false, therefore your claim "You either believe that something is true, or you have to believe it is false." must be wrong.

The only reasonable view is that which Danoff is adhering to, which is that 'I think it is unlikely to occur but could occur', which you have classified (totally against your own argument) as a position of 'no belief'. Correct. It is a position of 'no belief', and it neatly explains how the paradox you have created for yourself is resolved. But, if this state of 'no belief' exists, which it self-evidently does, then your statement about having to believe something is true or false is wrong - or at the very least, it is incomplete. To be complete, it ought to read "You either believe that something is true, or you believe it is false, or you do not apply belief at all."

reductionism

I'll maybe edit this post to address this later if I get the chance.

I'm also expecting to be busy tonight with GT6... believe it or not!

 

[Danoff]

You are claiming belief of a future event, but no belief in a exact timeframe for it.

Obviously, you believe it will fire on the next shot.

You are attempting to hold two opposite views at the same time.
One of belief, and one of no belief.
As I stated correctly, this cannot be done.

You misunderstood my post. You thought that I was affirmatively making these statements:

"The outcome will occur in the future."

and

"The gun will fire on the next shot"

I was not. These are examples of things that people can either believe or not believe. I was summarizing my position as one based on probability - the gun has a 1 in 6 chance of firing on the next shot. Then I was asking you to tell me what my state of belief was as to whether the gun will fire on the next shot. So the prediction (not my prediction, just a prediction):

"The gun will fire on the next shot"

Is obviously not something I believe to be true. Because I stated it has a 1 in 6 chance of firing on the next shot. But likewise it's not something I believe to be false. Now, you have stated that this is impossible:

You either believe that something is true, or you have to believe it is false.

Well, I don't believe that "the gun will fire on the next shot" is true or false. So clearly you are wrong. By the way this is the case for almost everything in my life.

So which is it, "The gun will fire on the next shot" or "I think it is unlikely to occur but could occur"?
If you choose the former, you are in "belief".
If you choose the latter, you are in "no belief".

This part of your post is continuing on the misunderstanding, but there is something else I want to respond to. If I choose the latter I am not of the opinion that the idea that the gun will fire on the next shot is either true or false. I do not believe it, and I do not "no belief" it. I expect it with a prescribed probability (an easy one to calculate in this instance). I think that the idea that the gun will fire on the next shot will be true 1 out of 6 times. That's not "no belief", that's a ~17% chance of being true.

Because a belief is tentative, does not mean it is not honest.

I wasn't of the impression that your God would allow you to have tentative belief in him or Jesus Christ and still allow you into heaven as long as you were honest. My understanding is that your God sends you straight to hell for any tentativeness in your belief and acceptance of him when you die. So tentative belief (which is an oxymoron), has no place in a conversation about religion. Tentative belief is best described as agnosticism - and agnostics go to hell.

We happen to be discussing what the word belief entails and it's application.
You don't necessarily have to know anything to form a belief.
Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean here.

Clearly one can form a belief in the presence of no evidence whatsoever, and humanity has a great deal of experience in that department. But, in a thread about religion, belief is knowledge. A belief is something you know for certain. The reason it is defined as such, is because that is how your God requires it to be defined. You must know in your heart that Jesus Christ is your savior and that God is your creator or you are not a true believer. And that's what this thread is all about. There is no room for in between.

No its not a contradiction.
You are confusing "unbelief" with "no belief".
They are distinctly different terms.

"No belief" means just that, you have not chosen or formed a belief.

This is not possible according to you:

You either believe that something is true, or you have to believe it is false.

If it is possible, and what I have quoted you saying here is incorrect, then what you are describing is how I live my entire life - not choosing to have a formed a belief. It is much like the gun example, I do not believe the gun will fire on the next shot, and I do not believe the gun will NOT fire on the next shot. I expect that the gun could fire with lower probability than that it would not fire. This is a microcosm of my entire life. I do not believe the alarm clock will wake me up, and I do not believe the alarm clock will NOT wake me up, I expect that the alarm clock could wake me up, and I expect this to happen more often than that it will not wake me up based on admittedly flawed empirical reasoning.

You have stated that it is not possible to live life without belief. I am explaining to you exactly how that is done - an assessment of likelihood of future or even past events, based on criteria that the assessor knows to be flawed, but uses anyway as it is the best option available.

"Belief" can be formed or chosen at any time, for any reason.
I might add, rational or otherwise.

I could quibble about some of that, but I mostly agree with it.

I think most people use a rational approach and form belief from a individual perspective of the scale of evidence.

Only if you bastardize the word "belief" to mean "expect more often than not" which removes it from application to religion.

In reality, since there is no gaurantee of future outcome, your actions are never in complete assurance.
Thats what makes them proof of "beliefs".

Uh no. Back to the gun example:

I expect the gun to fire with a 1 in 6 probability. I am not in complete assurance that it will fire, and I am not in complete assurance that it will not fire. If I suddenly needed that gun to defend myself, I would attempt to fire it. Is that proof that I believe it will fire? No. So is my action in the face of incomplete assurance proof of belief? No. It is evidence that I have concluded that the gun might fire, but I'm not even confident that I got that part right. I'm trying it because it is possible that the gun will fire - I base this on empirical experience, not belief.

You do not sound like a religious person in this discussion anymore, you sound like an agnostic. You have no guarantee that God exists (even though you should know this for certain), you don't have complete assurance in your belief in God (even though that should put you in hell automatically), in reality you describe yourself as "believing" in God when what you mean is that you're not sure God exists.

In a way, this discussion has been enlightening to me, as it has made me realize that many many religious people who claim they believe in God are actually agnostics who are misusing the term "believe".

 

[Touring Mars]

This part of your post is continuing on the misunderstanding, but there is something else I want to respond to. If I choose the latter I am not of the opinion that the idea that the gun will fire on the next shot is either true or false. I do not believe it, and I do not "no belief" it. I expect it with a prescribed probability (an easy one to calculate in this instance). I think that the idea that the gun will fire on the next shot will be true 1 out of 6 times. That's not "no belief", that's a ~17% chance of being true.

Are you sure about that?

According to my SCJ Dictionary, "'No belief' means just that, you have not chosen or formed a belief". If you can assign a probability to something, then surely you are in the 'no belief' category? Splitting hairs maybe, but it's quite important given SCJ's insistence on the ubiquity of belief.

I edited my post to include a bit about this just before you posted. Feel free to correct if I've misunderstood or misrepresented anything.

 

[Danoff]

Are you sure about that?

According to my SCJ Dictionary, "'No belief' means just that, you have not chosen or formed a belief". If you can assign a probability to something, then surely you are in the 'no belief' category? Splitting hairs maybe, but it's quite important given SCJ's insistence on the ubiquity of belief.

I edited my post to include a bit about this just before you posted. Feel free to correct if I've misunderstood or misrepresented anything.

I think this part of my post is what you're getting at:

If it is possible, and what I have quoted you saying here is incorrect, then what you are describing is how I live my entire life - not choosing to have a formed a belief. It is much like the gun example, I do not believe the gun will fire on the next shot, and I do not believe the gun will NOT fire on the next shot. I expect that the gun could fire with lower probability than that it would not fire. This is a microcosm of my entire life.

In the part you quoted I was still taking him to task over this sentiment:

You either believe that something is true, or you have to believe it is false.

If he has recanted on that, and he really does allow for someone not believing or disbelieving but reserving judgement, then I agree with your edit:

By jove I think he's got it.

Indeed if he really does understand that, then he can come to understand how an atheist can exist without belief.

 

[Famine]

Since GT6 releases today, I may not be around here much the the next several days.

It turns out that there really is a God - and his name is Kazunori Yamauchi.

 

[dxld]

It turns out that there really is a God - and his name is Kazunori Yamauchi.

kaz is the creator or Gran Turismo, but God Created Kaz, his parents, his grandparents, the Japanese People, the Filipinos, the Jews The Muslims, and everyone else.

 

[Famine]

Apparently you missed the joke in there.

But since you mention it, who was around to create God? I mean something so complex as a God would have to have a creator, right?

 

[dxld]

Apparently you missed the joke in there.

But since you mention it, who was around to create God? I mean something so complex as a God would have to have a creator, right?

God is the beginning as the Judeo-Christian Bible States. I think the
Islamic Koran says that too.

 

[Dennisch]

God is the beginning as the Judeo-Christian Bible States. I think the
Islamic Koran says that too.

And Superman was born on the planet Krypton.

 

[dxld]

And Superman was born on the planet Krypton.

But the Comic Book Artist an Writer Created the Superman Story and Character

 

[Carbonox]

But the Comic Book Artist an Writer Created the Superman Story and Character

Jokes missed within half an hour: 2.

 

[Famine]

And some guys who hated women quite a lot wrote and created the Talmud, Bible and Qu'ran - and thus the character 'God'. What's your point?

 

[dxld]

Jokes missed within half an hour: 2.

Most of the greatest comic book characters were created by Jewish People. Many of our greatest Comedians are Jewish like Adam Sandler. and many of the greatest video games were created by Japanese people. But then we go back to Jesus who created the world, and we find out he is Jewish Also.
Then we go back to Superman who was created by Jews, but one of the Superman Actors (Dean Caine) is half Japanese. Which lead us to Kaz... What does this mean? You figure it out....